House Republicans on Thursday introduced a bill that would eliminate a federal tax on gun silencers and would weaken licensing requirements that currently make the devices more difficult to buy than most firearms.

The Hearing Protection Act of 2015, proposed by Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) and co-sponsored by 10 of his colleagues, would do this by removing silencers, which are also called suppressors, from the purview of the National Firearms Act, instead putting them in the same regulatory category as long guns. As its title suggests, the bill's sponsors are framing it as an effort to keep shooters from damaging their ears.

In 1934, in the wake of Prohibition-era violence carried out by heavily armed bootleggers and gangsters, sound-suppressing devices were included on a list of NFA weaponry and other hardware, alongside firearms like machine guns and short-barreled shotguns. Today, purchases of silencers are still subject to a $200 fee, which covers an extensive FBI background check that can take months to complete.

People looking to buy items covered by the NFA must also go through a specific federal registration process, which is more stringent than the one that governs gun purchases from a Federal Firearms License holder. To get a silencer, for example, a buyer must submit a certification from a local law enforcement official vouching that the silencer will be used for lawful purposes.

The penalties for possession of an unregistered silencer or other NFA hardware, or for using NFA equipment to commit a crime, are also significantly higher than for standard firearms.

However, Salmon's bill would make it as easy to obtain a silencer as it is to get any other gun or piece of equipment from a Federal Firearms License holder. The $200 fee would be removed, and anyone who paid the fee between Oct. 22 and the law's actual enactment would get a refund. The bill also includes a provision to nullify any state-specific registration or taxation on silencers.

Silencers are currently legal for civilian use in most states, though some places, like California and New York, still have bans on the books. A number of states only allow the use of silencers for certain purposes, like hunting. Minnesota lawmakers recently moved to legalize silencers.

Salmon's office did not return a request for comment.

The American Suppressor Association, a group that represents the silencer industry, said the legislation is a necessary response to federal restrictions. The ASA claimed those restrictions have primarily survived because of politics and emotion, not fact.

"Despite common Hollywood-based misconceptions, the laws of physics dictate that no suppressor will ever be able to render gunfire silent," the group wrote in a release Thursday. "Suppressors are simply mufflers for firearms, which function by trapping the expanding gasses at the muzzle, allowing them to slowly cool in a controlled environment. On average, suppressors reduce the noise of a gunshot by 20-35 decibels (dB), roughly the same sound reduction as earplugs or earmuffs."

Knox Williams, president and executive director of the ASA, said the group had worked alongside Salmon and the National Rifle Association in drafting the bill, in the belief that "citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing while exercising their Second Amendment rights."

In the past, the NRA had been hesitant to get into bed with manufacturers of silencers, largely due to image problems that have long plagued the devices. In 2013, Mother Jones reported on the history of modern silencers, going back to their creation in the late 1960s by a onetime CIA dark-ops contractor, as well as their early use by CIA death squads in Vietnam. The ASA was formed in 2011, suggesting that the silencer industry has lately taken more of an interest in public relations and political influence.

Supporters of stronger gun regulations regularly point to the potential hazards of making it easier for civilians to get hold of accessories that -- as manufacturers readily admit -- allow shooters to disguise their location by minimizing the noise and light produced by firing a gun. There's little evidence to suggest that silencers are used regularly in criminal activity, but there have been a number of cases in which gunmen, or would-be gunmen, were found to have used the devices or at least been in possession of them.

For example, Christopher Dorner, the former Los Angeles police officer who went on a killing spree in 2013, reportedly had a cache of weapons that included 10 silencers. In a manifesto laying out his plot, Dorner even argued that it was too easy for people like him to obtain this sort of equipment, which he claimed to have gotten by exploiting a loophole that allowed him to skirt a California law banning silencers. But authorities never presented evidence to suggest Dorner had used the silencers during his rampage.

Ladd Everett, director of communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, says manufacturers are simply making a financial calculation in the current push to make it cheaper and easier for people to get silencers, despite the potential for misuse.

"The NRA and gun industry view accessories like silencers as potential profit areas, with guns themselves so well-saturated throughout their existing customer base. That’s why we’ve seen this multi-state effort to weaken laws in this area, the obvious consequences for safety be damned," Everett told The Huffington Post. "It’s about profit, nothing else."

The market for silencers is growing rapidly, even with the current federal restrictions. According to data released earlier this year by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, there were nearly 800,000 silencers registered under the National Firearms Act as of February 2015 -- a 39 percent rise from 2014 numbers, which showed that 571,150 such devices were registered.

The Reaper

10-25-2015, 11:34

An interesting interpretation of suppressors and the NFA, not exactly unbiased.

TR

Brush Okie

10-25-2015, 13:45

In many parts of gun control Europe that is exactly how they look at suppressos. The problem is the president would have to sign the bill into law and zero chance of that happpening.

Guymullins

10-25-2015, 14:17

We hav quite onerous Gun Control rules in South Africa. However, suppressors are not controlled in any way and are cheap and easily available. This is one area where the NRA can harness the Bunny Hugger vote to swing the public sentiment toward the use of suppressors. Firstly, I think using the word Silencer is counter-productive. It is inaccurate to begin with and connotates surreptitious use of the weapon so equipped. Secondly, the main usage is hunters fitting suppressors so as not to unduly disturb game. Often, un-supressed gunfire alarms game animals in a wide radius from the shooting position, causing it to panic and run into fences or otherwise hurt itself. Effective suppression avoids this.
Once hunting use is promoted , there is little to stop the use on hand guns. In fact, one could use the same suppressor on a .22 pistol as well as a rifle.

35NCO

10-25-2015, 16:32

"....going back to their creation in the late 1960s by a onetime CIA dark-ops contractor, as well as their early use by CIA death squads in Vietnam."

I have been hoping for this to be introduced into law for years. It is going to be extremely difficult to impossible to pass. Will depend on election factors.

wahoo

11-11-2015, 17:04

I'm an extremely pro-gun person. The NFA paperwork process with current transfer times at 4 months is better than it was.

The problem with silencers for everyone is: There are a lot of criminals who would love to get their hands on silencers just to quietly shoot people.

I have to support the NFA, because these weapons aren't getting used in crimes. if you want one and have a clean record, you can go to any class 3 SOT and he will walk you through the process.

Brush Okie

11-11-2015, 17:54

I'm an extremely pro-gun person. The NFA paperwork process with current transfer times at 4 months is better than it was.

The problem with silencers for everyone is: There are a lot of criminals who would love to get their hands on silencers just to quietly shoot people.

I have to support the NFA, because these weapons aren't getting used in crimes. if you want one and have a clean record, you can go to any class 3 SOT and he will walk you through the process.

Lots of failed logic in your thinking. go to you tube and look up how to make a suppressor. That is a start. I won't get into the whole criminals don't buy their weapons in a store.

wahoo

11-11-2015, 19:22

I'll try to better explain my position. The bill would make silencers the same as buying any title 1 gun. That means a lot of them out there not registered to the owner. Stolen, private sale, straw purchased for criminals. This is common with handguns. Handguns make up the majority of gun crime. The issue is all the guns here used in a crime came from a manufacturer/dealer and wound up on the street.

With NFA registration and transfer of registration people are keeping accountability of the guns exc. not using them in crime.

The NFA paperwork process with current transfer times at 4 months is better than it was.4 months misses the mark by 4 months.

The problem with silencers for everyone is: There are a lot of criminals who would love to get their hands on silencers just to quietly shoot people.It's not a problem for me; they're going to do what they do.

I have to support the NFA, because these weapons aren't getting used in crimes. Do you support special permission slips & taxes for purchase of semi-automatic military-styled long guns, even though they're largely not being used in crimes?

If you want one and have a clean record, you can go to any class 3 SOT and he will walk you through the process.There shouldn't have to be a process to be walked through; it should be sold as an accessory. Laws that infringe (and let the ATF run rampant as the enforcement arm since before World War II) are made by people that want to 'feel' better and get re-elected for being so noble. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

wahoo

11-13-2015, 13:38

I suppose you're one of the people who thinks machine guns should be for sale at Walmart without any registration or paperwork. I'll just settle my case with that.

Now don't get me wrong, I think you should be able to own one if you have a clean record and go through the NFA paperwork process. The gun is then registed to you and you're responsible for it, until it's registration is transferred to someone else.

The reason is because the NFA works, there are very few instances of a registered NFA weapon used in a crime. Since 1934 people have owned registered NFA weapons almost without incident.

If they are open to everyone for purchase the "Walmart scenario", there would be mass shootings with Saw's rather than AR15's.

Old Dog New Trick

11-13-2015, 14:21

I suppose you're one of the people who thinks machine guns should be for sale at Walmart without any registration or paperwork. I'll just settle my case with that.

Now don't get me wrong, I think you should be able to own one if you have a clean record and go through the NFA paperwork process. The gun is then registed to you and you're responsible for it, until it's registration is transferred to someone else.

The reason is because the NFA works, there are very few instances of a registered NFA weapon used in a crime. Since 1934 people have owned registered NFA weapons almost without incident.

If they are open to everyone for purchase the "Walmart scenario", there would be mass shootings with Saw's rather than AR15's.

:rolleyes: :munchin

The NFA is a result of Bonnie and Clyde - they didn't go around shooting folks. Fear tactic one - the mob used submachine-guns - so did the cops. The cops killed more people with them than the bad guys. You've watched too many movies!

Today (well before 1996) select-fire weapons cost thousands of dollars. Bad guys, even well funded bad guys don't spend thousands of dollars to buy a murdering weapon. Bad guys and street thugs don't care about your laws and if they can get an AK or mil grade M-something they didn't pay retail price.

Cartels and the drug industry don't buy guns from local firearms dealers. They also don't pay thousands of dollars for military grade weapons - unless they come in a crate and there are many for those thousands. Cartels don't have any problems importing illegal weapons across borders and state lines.

Weekend warriors couldn't feed a SAW a steady diet of 5.56 and ultimately a nut case would miss more targets than the bullets he carried.

Lastly, there is not such a thing as a "silencer" (well, there is, but they are not feasible for common use and impractical for most) but a good "suppressor" and sub-sonic ammo will make your gun easier on the ears and of those nearby. A pillow works well and no need to register yourself or spend extra money. Pillows are often supplied by the victim(s). Do the math.

Peregrino

11-13-2015, 14:41

I suppose you're one of the people who thinks machine guns should be for sale at Walmart without any registration or paperwork. I'll just settle my case with that.

Now don't get me wrong, I think you should be able to own one if you have a clean record and go through the NFA paperwork process. The gun is then registed to you and you're responsible for it, until it's registration is transferred to someone else.

The reason is because the NFA works, there are very few instances of a registered NFA weapon used in a crime. Since 1934 people have owned registered NFA weapons almost without incident.

If they are open to everyone for purchase the "Walmart scenario", there would be mass shootings with Saw's rather than AR15's.

Interesting. I wasn't aware that mass shootings, let alone mass shootings with AR's were a statistically significant cause of death in a nation with a population exceeding 325 million people. And the few instances of registered machineguns being used in crimes that I'm aware of were mostly attributed to LEOs. Let's look at things that are significant. How do you feel about automobiles? Or alcohol? Or - God forbid - cigarettes? Medical malpractice? Any one of them kill far more people every year than firearms yet none of them are as tightly regulated.

You obviously disagree with the sentiments expressed by a number of our founding fathers, succinctly presented in the following quote: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it" (Thomas Jefferson). Personally I like "The right to arms has long been recognized as a core distinction between a citizen and a subject, a free man and a slave." As others have pointed out - the NFA is a violation of the Second Amendment that has nothing to do with arms control while having everything to do with people control. If the original court case had been contested, we might have a completely different circumstance today.

Personally, I find far less to fear in "Wal-Mart machineguns" than I do in legislative pens.